We are all the flowers of one garden

Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne, spoke on radio before Christmas about religious persecution. In many countries, religious minorities face multiple challenges, and the situation reminded him, he said, of the “dark days of the 1930s”. In his opinion, it is "beyond all belief" that it still continues even after the horrors of the Holocaust were exposed.

For members of the Bahá’í Faith, religious persecution has been an issue from its beginning. The Bahá’ís in a number of countries are still facing persecution, with several examples recently appearing in the news media. However, Bahá’u’lláh taught that, “It is better for you to be killed than to kill,” and Bahá’ís never resist violence with violence.

Currently, persecution of various religious minorities takes place in India, Pakistan, Burma and other countries, as well as in the Middle East. The people who kill someone of a different religion deny, by their actions, the very nature and purpose of religion. In the Bahá’í Writings it says: “The advent of the prophets and the revelation of the Holy Books is intended to create love between souls and friendship between the inhabitants of the earth.” Unfortunately, many people no longer read these books…

In this country there have recently been many individual acts of hatred or abuse, such as burning down mosques, rudeness to women wearing hijab and verbal attacks on Jews. However, this sort of behaviour is not only aimed at religious minorities, because there is now rudeness to, and even attacks on, people from other European countries. All of these examples show that the persecution actually stems from a sense of “otherness”: “You are not one of us!” It is also a manifestation of self-centredness and a lack of empathy, as is the persecution of people who have limited mental capacity, or are sleeping on the streets, or who simply look different. It is the same phenomenon as some forms of bullying: “You are inferior (or just different) to me, therefore I will trample on your rights and your feelings.”

A completely different perspective is called for, to eliminate this kind of behaviour. Bahá’u’lláh said, “O people of the world, ye are all the fruit of one tree and the leaves of one branch.” His Son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, used the analogy of the flowers of one garden: “though differing in kind, colour, form and shape, yet … this diversity increases their charm, and adds to their beauty.” This is a poetic way of expressing the scientific fact that, despite certain superficial differences, all human beings are inter-related – one human family. On another occasion he used a musical analogy: “The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord.”

Prince Charles suggested that regardless of one's religion, people should seek to value and respect other people, “accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God.” This fits perfectly with Bahá’u’lláh’s call to: “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” One of the reasons why religion is so necessary is that religion, in its pure form, gives people a positive code of behaviour – lifting people to a more ethical way of life. Far from persecuting others, we should treat them as God would wish us to treat them, and as we would wish to be treated ourselves. We should respect them, love them and help them. Bahá’u’lláh said: “O friend! In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love...”

Let’s put the veto to a vote

After four years of fighting, nearly the whole of the city of Aleppo (in Syria) is now controlled by one side in the war. The United Nations, which people expect to solve conflicts, has been unable to do anything much at all in this war. It has been kept out of the real decision-making processes. What has caused this inability to act? One answer is the veto. Any resolution brought to the Security Council has been vetoed by one of the “Great Powers”. These are the major countries which were on the winning side in World War Two: the United States of America, the U.S.S.R. (now Russia), the United Kingdom, France and China.

The United Nations was set up to “keep the peace”. This was in 1945, when peace had just been achieved at the end of the Second World War. The mindset of the winning side in that war was that peace had been achieved, and that that peace now had to be kept. They simply did not foresee that other trouble spots would endlessly break out over the succeeding years, and that there often would be no peace to keep. Therefore, the United Nations charter has no mandate to achieve or impose a peace. The United Nations has two main decision-making bodies. One is the General Assembly of all 193 member countries. Then there is the fifteen-member Security Council, which specialises in discussing particular crises as they arise. Ten of the members will have been voted onto the Council for a set period of time, but the five Great Powers have permanent seats on it. If one of these Great Powers votes against a particular resolution, it automatically fails to be adopted. This is the power of the veto. In the case of the conflict in Syria, the Great Powers have supported different sides in the war, and the veto has prevented any resolution ever being passed which might stop the war.

The Bahá’í International Community made recommendations to the United Nations for improving the system in 1955, and again in 1995. Among the many suggestions made were that the institution of the five permanent seats on the Security Council should be abolished, and that the veto, likewise, should cease to exist.

In the 1860s, Bahá’u’lláh wrote to many of the rulers of the time, and recommended that they attend in person a universal Peace Conference. The agenda would include: fixing all the disputed boundaries; agreeing the level of armaments for each country; and instituting rules on how countries should behave towards one another. The resulting Peace Treaty should be offered to the world, for the population as a whole to give its support to its provisions: “It is their duty to convene an all-inclusive assembly, which either they themselves or their ministers will attend, and to enforce whatever measures are required to establish unity and concord amongst men. They must put away the weapons of war, and turn to the instruments of universal reconstruction. Should one king rise up against another, all the other kings must arise to deter him.” If this treaty had been adopted, it would have been a much more powerful force for peace than the current United Nations Organisation is allowed to be.

Although this treaty would have prevented wars between countries, it would not prevent civil wars breaking out within countries. It is the installation of proper democratic institutions which should stop civil wars. There is then a channel, through the ballot box, both for change, and for expressing discontent. Another of the recommendations from the Bahá’í International Community in 1995 was that in the General Assembly, only governments which had been elected by a proper democratic procedure should have a vote when there are decisions to be made. This should encourage the other countries to adopt some form of democracy.

The course of the war in Syria could have been greatly altered by Security Council resolutions, several years ago, had it been possible to apply a simple majority vote. In fact, just one of the five permanent members has so far vetoed no less than six resolutions on Syria since the war began. (Other members have vetoed other resolutions in previous conflicts.) Had there been no veto, a great deal could have been achieved. For instance, the Security Council could have imposed a “no-fly” zone. It could have imposed sanctions on any country putting in troops to fight there. Instead, chances have been missed to protect the civilian population and to ban the supply of weapons.

The United Nations continues to be hampered by the veto. Does humanity as a whole think it should remain? Does it serve any useful purpose? Perhaps we should put it to a vote.



[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

I have written about related issues before, particularly in “A long way short” (in September, 2015)

You have to be kind to be kind

Prince William has recently been highlighting the scandal of the poaching of African elephants for ivory. Because people will be paid for any ivory they collect, some individuals are prepared to kill elephants, simply to take the tusks. Others do not even go to the trouble of killing them - they are prepared to cut the tusks off the elephant while it is still alive. To hear that elephants are being killed for this reason pains me, to hear that others are maimed pains me more.

Some people seem to think that animals do not feel pain. It is either that or a feeling that it does not matter if someone inflicts injury on them. I find this rather disturbing.

Kindness to animals is in itself an important Bahá’í principle. Bahá’u’lláh listed kindness to animals as one of the qualities which must be acquired by anyone searching for God. In other words, spiritual development requires that we love and respect all of our fellow-creatures, human or otherwise. The necessity of our treating all creatures with respect was highlighted by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who quoted the poet Rumi:

“Unless ye must,

Bruise not the serpent in the dust,

How much less wound a man.

And if ye can,

No ant should ye alarm,

Much less a brother harm.”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá also said: “To the blessed animals… the utmost kindness must be shown, the more the better. Tenderness and loving-kindness are basic principles of the divine kingdom. Ye should most carefully bear this matter in mind.”

In the animal world we find emotions, we find intelligence, and highly developed powers. A dog’s hearing is more powerful than that of a human. A bird of prey has much more powerful sight than does a person. Elephants, as we know, have a very well-developed memory. The powers and senses which help migrating birds navigate their journeys are still not fully understood. The abilities and capacities displayed in the animal world should be a cause for wonder, leading naturally to respect and compassion. It should also be considered that animals are themselves an essential part of the world’s eco-system, and should be respected and nurtured as such.

At the present time, meat is still widely used as food for humans. The principle of kindness to animals therefore requires that care is taken over the treatment of animals which are to be eaten. Kindness to animals demands not just an end to inhumane behaviour by poachers, but demands great care in the treatment of farm animals. We sometimes hear of animals transported without food and water; we are made aware of hens kept in battery cages, with no real freedom of movement. We need to ask ourselves if these kinds of practices are acceptable.

Although Bahá’ís are allowed to eat meat, it is a Bahá’í belief that mankind will gradually change to a vegetarian diet. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said: “The food of the future will be fruit and grains. The time will come when meat will no longer be eaten… our natural food is that which grows out of the ground. The people will gradually develop up to the condition of this natural food.”

In the meantime we need to improve the treatment of all animals. Any person indulging in animal cruelty can arguably be described as thoughtless, in one sense or another. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that children are brought up with the idea of kindness to animals. To produce kind people, we need to develop kind behaviour. In ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s words: “Train your children from their earliest days to be infinitely tender and loving to animals. If an animal be sick, let the children try to heal it, if it be hungry, let them feed it, if thirsty, let them quench its thirst, if weary, let them see that it rests.” If our children are brought up this way, there will be an end to cruelty to animals.                      

Is globalisation a good thing?

Recent political events in two of the world’s most industrialised nations have called into question the current trend towards “globalisation”. Whether you think that globalisation is a good thing largely depends on which aspects you are taking into account. If you look at our increasing ability to buy foods and products from other parts of the world, the increasing ease of visiting other countries and learning about their cultures, you would probably think that globalisation is a good thing. But if you look at the jobs being lost in your country because production is cheaper elsewhere, goods being “dumped” and that a single culture seems to be taking over, you would probably think it is a bad thing.

Globalisation, meaning the increasing inter-dependence of different parts of the world, has been happening for many centuries, but has speeded up in recent times. It could be argued, now that we have better transport links, that globalisation should help the poorer countries. Factories can now be opened up there, and because their workforces will accept lower wages, they can make things more cheaply. This is surely better than the chronic under-employment in these countries – a low-paid job is better than no job at all. However, for the present, it does not actually seem to be balancing out the relative wealth of the poorer and the richer nations. This may partly be because the factories opening up in the poorer countries could well belong to multi-national companies, whose base is elsewhere, and the profit therefore often gets siphoned back to the rich countries. The arrival of the factories and shops of these experienced and well-financed companies may also force local businesses to close, thus proving a real double-edged sword. Further, the poorer countries may not be in a position to force the multi-national companies to act in an environmentally sound way. Workers may be very poorly treated, health and safety may be low priorities, and rapid, uncontrolled, industrialisation may lead to rampant pollution, as it has in China since it became the workshop of the world.

Businessmen and politicians devoted to the ideas of “competition” and “market forces” may be oblivious to the instant mass redundancy caused by closing factories in the home country, in favour of factories which are cheaper to run in another country. They may not feel that they owe anything to the people who have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, people from the poorer countries know that wages are much higher in the richer ones, and go to great lengths to try and reach the more well-off countries, sometimes dying in the process. Clearly, everything is out of balance.

Globalisation, viewed in a positive light, is helping us to understand other countries and, for example, to respond more quickly to natural disasters. Bahá’u’lláh, writing in the nineteenth century, proclaimed, “This earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens”. But to create this better world, we need a world government, with world-wide laws to prevent the multi-national corporations treating people and countries badly. Likewise, there needs to be a universal tax system so that taxes can be paid by everyone at a fair rate. Businesses and their employees need to operate with honesty and trustworthiness, understanding that their own interests are best served by operating for the good of the whole world.

Bahá’ís would wish for many other changes in the economic system. There should be more place for co-operative enterprises; there should be genuine profit-sharing arrangements. The elimination of poverty and of extreme individual wealth should be universal goals. Power should be devolved to the local authorities, which should be allowed to guide the local economics of the area, and to ensure that people are given proper opportunities and incentives. Agriculture should be seen as the most important industry.

If we concentrate on all the bad things happening in the economic sphere at present, of course we will conclude that globalisation is a bad thing. If we concentrate on building up some form of world government, on bringing about world unity and economic justice on a global scale, we will conclude that globalisation is not just a good thing, it is the next stage for mankind.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

In my April 2016 blog, “There is a better way”, I explained briefly the support system (known as the “storehouse”) which should operate in each town and village.

In February, 2016, I wrote about trustworthiness in the blog post “You might cheat people, but you cannot cheat nature”. 

And then there were eight

Last weekend, the first Bahá’í House of Worship in South America was dedicated, in a ceremony in Santiago, Chile. Friends of mine sent me these photos. Somehow, the building suggests something organic rather than man-made. The outside of the building consists of nine “sails” or “wings”, which are made of thousands of glass pieces mounted on aluminium frames, with panels of translucent stone on the inside. (The second picture shows the inside of the dome.) The different parts of the building have been subjected to seismological tests, as earthquakes are relatively frequent in the Andes, and indeed the foundations have already been tested by the real thing, in 2015!

As part of the dedication event, a large concert hall was hired, in which South Americans of many different cultures and traditions performed. The prayers and singing were in many different languages, and people attended from 110 different countries.

There is now a House of Worship (“Temple”) in each continent. The proper name of the House of Worship is the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár, which means “Dawning place of the praise of God”. Each one has nine sides and nine gardens, with nine paths leading to the nine doors. This symbolically represents the idea that all paths ultimately lead to the same one, multi-faceted, truth.

Every Bahá’í House of Worship is open to people of all backgrounds, all castes, races and creeds for private prayer, and there are also “services” which include readings from the Scriptures of all the world religions. No sermons are preached, and there are no musical instruments other than human voices. Although every House of Worship is open to everybody, each one was built only with money from the Bahá’ís.

Among the Houses of Worship already built, I am particularly intrigued by the one for Central America, which is in Panama. There are Native American designs on the walls, and as Panama is a tropical country, there are no windows. It has been built in such a way that the air can move through, but the rain does not get in. It also means that birds can fly through!

This is the Bahá’í House of Worship in New Delhi, India, which is based on the design of the lotus flower. The lotus is a form of water lily, and is regarded as a symbol of purity. However polluted the mud may be at the bottom of the lake, and however filthy the water, the lotus blossom on the surface opens out pure and untainted by its surroundings. The House of Worship has been nicknamed the Lotus Temple (“Lotus Mandir”). An Indian gentleman was questioning recently why we had a picture of the Lotus Temple in our Bahá’í exhibition (here in England). When told that it was a Bahá’í building, he refused to believe that. “It is not a Bahá’í temple. It is for everybody. It is for people of all religions.” “Yes”, I replied, “the Bahá’ís built it so that…” “No, no. It is not a Bahá’í temple! It belongs to everybody!” He had definitely understood the spirit which underlay the building of this temple!

Technically, none of these Houses of Worship (there are now eight) is actually finished, because there should be ancillary buildings as part of the institution of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explained, “The temple, wherein each may worship God in his own way, is to be surrounded by such accessories as a hospital, pilgrim-house, school for orphans and university for the study of higher sciences.” As there are still only a few million Bahá’ís in the world, the majority of them in developing countries, finance for these is still some way off.

The next stage is the beginning of construction of national and local Houses of Worship, in countries where there are a large number of Bahá’ís. The first two national ones will be in Papua New Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There are also five smaller local ones to be built in different countries: in Cambodia (this is an impression of the building in Cambodia), Colombia, India (in Bihar, over 500 miles from Delhi), Kenya and Vanuatu. In each case, the area has a significant and active Bahá’í population, who will make good use the building. Perhaps my friends will be able to attend more dedication ceremonies in the future!


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

For anyone interested in the construction of the temple in Chile visit: http://news.bahai.org/story/975

Work in the spirit of service

Another chapter opened recently in the ongoing saga of multi-national corporations and the payment of tax. The European Commission demanded that Apple (the technology developer) pay €12 billion to the government of Ireland in back taxes. Apple seemed unhappy with this request, and the Irish government was initially uncertain how to react, as it felt it had gained advantage from the arrangement with Apple.

The problem is that large companies, who provide goods and services in a number of countries, find ways of avoiding the payment of tax at a reasonable level, comparable to what is paid by other companies or by private citizens. They amass huge resources, and have more money than do some small countries. In a sense, they operate “above the law”, because they choose which laws to subject themselves to, by choosing which country they claim to be based in. The situation is such that poor countries and small island nations are tempted to offer lower tax rates, just so as to attract some economic activity into their territories.

What is the purpose of taxation? The tax that is collected from people and companies pays for hospitals, roads, schools, police and so on. The multi-national companies receive the benefit from these. Their employees are educated in schools paid for by taxes. The companies use the roads to transport materials and goods. The employees may well benefit from public health systems, and so on. It therefore seems fair that, as they benefit from public services, the companies should contribute to the taxation system which pays for them.

The governments of the world are struggling to find ways of coping with the activities of these multinational companies. Fundamentally, each of the companies has an executive who can take clear decisions. The world, however, still does not. Part of the solution, therefore, must be some form of world government or world authority which can ensure that there are no tax havens, and that tax will be paid by “multi-national” corporations into a “multi-national” system.

But this is not the only change that has to be made. A change in the spirit of commercial enterprise is also necessary. Honesty and trustworthiness need to be regarded as essential qualities which should shine out from every individual and from every business. These qualities will themselves benefit everyone involved. Bahá’u’lláh wrote: “The eyes of this Wronged One are turned towards naught save trustworthiness, truthfulness, purity, and all that profiteth men." It should no longer be necessary for businesses to employ lawyers and accountants to try to find ways of hiding wealth, nor for the authorities to employ yet more lawyers and accountants to try to discover where it is hidden.

If the Bahá’í principle of seeing mankind as one family were accepted, this also would greatly reduce tax avoidance. People would not wish to cheat their own relatives, their fellow human beings!

Another fundamental principle of Bahá’u’lláh is that work should be performed in a spirit of service to others. He said further that when it is performed in this spirit it is a form of worship. The reason why any employment exists is simply that other humans need this work to be done, so the very performance of work is, logically, a service to others. A realisation of this truth should be coupled with a change of heart, and “work in a spirit of service” should become the measure of all human activity. Many multi-national companies would do well to realise this. Producing or providing more useful telephones, computers or browsers can be seen as service to others. So can providing tasty coffee. However, paying people to try to find tax loopholes can not.

We are not alone

Within each constellation, the brightest-looking star is called Alpha, the second brightest is referred to as Beta, and so on. When it came to measuring how far away from us each star might be, the brightest star in the constellation of Centaur (“Alpha Centauri”) seemed to be the nearest to our Sun, at “only” 4.2 light years in distance.

When astronomers tried to learn more about Alpha Centauri, it was discovered that there are actually two stars operating together as a binary system, and these are known as Alpha Centauri A and (you guessed it) Alpha Centauri B. But books usually still refer to Alpha Centauri as if it were one star.

In 1915, the Scottish astronomer Robert Innes discovered another star nearby, too dim to be seen with the naked eye. When the distance was calculated, it was found to be nearer to our Sun than the Alpha Centauri stars are! So, although we can see several thousand stars with the naked eye, the nearest one is simply invisible to us. I find this quite exciting, a red dwarf star (yes, really) that is our nearest, but secret, neighbour! Its name, “Proxima” Centauri, actually means “nearest”. And yet, although this star has been known for over a hundred years, many sources still state that “Alpha Centauri is our nearest star”.

Proxima Centauri is a less massive star than our Sun, slightly older and with a lower surface temperature. And yet, this month, a new discovery has been announced. Our nearest star has a planet circling it, now named “Proxima b” (artist's impression above). This planet is at the right distance from the star to enable it to have liquid water, which is important because many scientists believe that water is essential for life to exist. The zone in which this sort of planet should exist has been nicknamed “the Goldilocks Zone” – not too hot, not too cold, but just right!

Writing before Proxima Centauri itself had even been discovered, Bahá’u’lláh said, “Every… star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures…” The life of a planet, and indeed of a star, stretches over billions of years, and it is perfectly possible that different planets go through different stages in the evolution of life at vastly different times. So even if “Proxima b” has had/will have life, it may not necessarily exist there now. What the discovery of “Proxima b” does do is show that the presence of planets around stars is even more of a feature than previously realised, and that theoretically inhabitable planets are also more common than was realised. Crucially, to have habitable planets, the star does not have to resemble our Sun. This hugely increases the number of stars which may support habitable planets, and therefore the chances that we are not alone.

Certain scientists are already considering new theoretical ways of speedier space travel, essential if we are to travel to the nearest star systems. While that research is under way, it would be wise to sort out conditions on our own planet, ensuring that we are in a fit state to set off to visit the neighbours! Firstly, we need to establish some sort of genuine co-ordination at the planetary level. That would be greatly assisted by the choice of a world shared language. We need to abandon the practices of various kinds of warfare, including terrorism – no other planet will want us exporting violence to their worlds. If we want to have anything positive to offer our planetary neighbours, then we need to improve our economic systems, and ensure that everyone has an acceptable standard of living, before we start trying to visit other planets! Bahá’u’lláh wrote that “All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilisation”. Let us work on overcoming the world’s immediate problems so that we can present a positive and friendly face to the neighbours.